header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 July 2017 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7754 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Abuse upon abuse?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7754_herring

Allowing alleged abusers to cross examine their victims is a stain on the reputation of the family justice system. Jonathan Herring puts the case for reform

  • Mr Justice Hayden expresses strong judicial disapproval that the law permits an alleged abuser to cross examine his victim in family cases.
  • In fact finding hearings judge must rely on proven facts rather than suspicions.

Imagine suffering years of abuse. You finally escape and become involved in a dispute with your abuser over the children. You are not provided legal representation and must represent yourself. Even worse, you must face cross examination at the hands of the very person who has sought to control you for the past years. It sounds like something more from a feminist dystopia but occurs in the English Family Courts today.

The facts of Re A

Re A (A Minor (Fact Finding: Unrepresented Party) [2017] EWHC 1195 (fam), [2017] All ER (D) 49 (Jun) concerned a couple married in Pakistan. The mother arrived in the UK with their child (A) in 2014,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll